On 8 November 1974 on the occasion of the 57th
anniversary of the Great November Revolution, Comrade Ghosh discussed some of
the basic teachings of November Revolution, and, in that light, the stage of
revolution in India, particularly emphasizing that Marxism is not economic
determinism.

Comrades,

You all know that the West Bengal State Committee of our party,
the SUCI, has organized this mass meeting on the occasion of the 57th
Anniversary of the Great November Revolution in Russia. You have also heard and
I hope all of you know that on this day, 57 years back, in the year 1917, in
that country alone in the world the first socialist revolution was successful.
Under the leadership of their Bolshevik Party and its leader Comrade Lenin, the
workers-peasants, the proletariat in that country, were able to capture state
power by overthrowing the bourgeois party, or for that matter, the ruling
bourgeois class. This revolution which took place in Russia in 1917 to overthrow
the bourgeoisie from state power is significant in many respects.

In fact, before the Russian revolution, people throughout the world could not
even imagine that the ignorant workers-peasants and the illiterate toilers could
ever overthrow the ruling bourgeoisie or the formidable monarchical rule like
that of Czardom from power. Through the February Revolution of 1917 which
overthrew the Czar or Czardom from power in Russia, it can be said that
bourgeois democratic revolution was successful. But although Czardom could be
overthrown through the February Revolution, the state power went into the hands
of the bourgeoisie, the Russian bourgeoisie, which was a partner in the united
struggle against Czardom. Thus, through the February Revolution the bourgeois
Kerensky government was no doubt established in Russia, but side by side the
Soviets of workers and peasants also existed almost in the form of dual power.
The February Revolution of Russia not only failed to do away with
feudalism-imperialism completely, but, what is more, the bourgeoisie having come
to power was found to be keeping intact the old feudal order and also
maintaining at the same time a full-scale understanding with the imperialists.
As a result, although the bourgeoisie captured state power overthrowing Czardom
through revolution, if we analyse the phase of social revolution from the
economic aspect, we find that the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist tasks of
bourgeois democratic revolution still remained unaccomplished.

This helped create a misconception among many, who were known as Marxists in
the revolutionary movement of Russia -- the Socialist Revolutionaries, the
Menshevik party, etc., and even many within the Bolshevik party who for all
practical purposes reduced Marxism to economic determinism. From an old
understanding of Marxian theory -- that is, the understanding that grew and
developed following Marxism somewhat as a dogma and which was not the correct
dialectical materialistic understanding of Marxism -- they started saying that
since in the course of progress and development of the society the stages of
social revolution cannot be skipped over, the Soviets of workers and peasants
should co-operate with the Kerensky government with the object of fulfilling the
anti-feudal, anti-imperialist tasks of bourgeois democratic revolution, on the
one hand, and organize people's movements, on the other, to mount pressure on
the Kerensky government to get these unfulfilled tasks realized. In this way,
the workers-peasants, the proletariat would have to go along the path of
parliamentary politics and through this process the bourgeois democratic
revolution would have to be completed first. Till these tasks of the bourgeois
democratic revolution were completed, it was meaningless to strive for socialist
revolution or, for that matter, any other revolution. Such a notion strongly
prevailed in Russia after the February Revolution.

Marxism is not economic determinism

But at that time the leadership of the Bolshevik Party was in the hands of
the genuine Marxists. And an able leader like Comrade Lenin was at the helm. He
was not a Marxist of the type who took recourse to quotation mongering and
picked up at random and out of context a few lines from here and a few from
there to suit his own contention or to anyhow demolish his opponents' arguments.
He realized the basic truth that Marxism was not just what was enunciated in the
Marxist classics. To him realization of Marxism meant acquiring the scientific
methodology, that is, the Marxist dialectics and the philosophical outlook with
the help of which Marx, Engels and other Marxists came to those conclusions, to
apply that in practice and to grasp the essence of the concrete conditions in
which these enunciations were made. Quotation mongering, citing analogies and
drawing of historical parallels -- none of these has anything to do with the
Marxist methodological approach, that is, none of these conforms to the
dialectical method of analysis of Marxism. In the name of Marxism all these are
vulgarization of Marxism. Lenin understood this perfectly. Because he understood
this, he courageously struck at the root of the ideas prevalent through his
famous treatise, The April Theses. He said and showed clearly to the
communists of the world that Marxism is not economic determinism -- on this
stands the valuable teaching of Lenin that politics always supersedes economy.
That means, with the uneven development of capitalism, the twists and turns, the
zigzags and the ups and downs of the revolutionary movements -- sometimes going
ahead and sometimes retreating, in the midst of such tussles, politics and
political events are strongly influencing economic development, so much so that
these have become actually the determinant. If someone does not understand the
mutual relation between politics and economy in this way, rather thinks that as
the economic condition changes so changes the political condition, that is, the
political condition changes only as reflection of the economic change -- that
means he has not understood Marxism, he has accepted something else in the name
of Marxism.

The determination of the class character of the state is the fundamental
question in ascertaining the strategy of revolution

On the basis of this analysis Lenin showed that with the overthrow of
Nicholas Czar from state power, the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia
was attained. Politically, after the February Revolution there, in the place of
Nicholas Czar, that is, in the place of an old class, a new class, the Russian
bourgeoisie had assumed the state power. Lenin of course knew that from the
economic aspect many of the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution
remained unfulfilled till then in Russia. In the rural economy, despite
infiltration of capitalism, feudalism still continued to exist as a powerful
force. Economically, subjugation by and subservience to imperialism, the finance
capital of the rich European capitalist countries was very much marked. But
still, knowing all this, Lenin said that since politically the main question of
revolution is connected with the question of seizure of state power, hence the
moment the Russian bourgeoisie had captured the state power by overthrowing
Nicholas Czar, that is, a new class had assumed the state power in the place of
the old one, to that extent and in that sense the bourgeois democratic
revolution was completed and Russia had entered the stage of socialist
revolution. So, under the circumstances one cannot move ahead clinging to the
old concept of the strategy and tactics of the bourgeois democratic revolution.
To cling to the old ideas would mean servitude to the bourgeoisie, completely
negating the self-sacrifice and martyrdom of the workers-peasants and surrender
at the feet of the bourgeois class, and hence would constitute a betrayal of
revolution. So, he discarded the old slogan of the bourgeois democratic
revolution. Instead he raised the slogan of socialist revolution and advanced a
new concept on class alliance and class alignment of forces. This important
analysis as propounded in the April Theses was as yet unknown in the
Marxist movement. Hence, at that time, this question was widely debated among
the Marxists.

Be that as it may, the essence or the fundamental point which comes out of it
should be clearly understood. Those in our country who, finding even the
slightest trace of feudalism in economy, characterize our revolution as
bourgeois democratic or national democratic and argue how can we reach the stage
of socialist revolution by a leap without completing the tasks of bourgeois
democratic revolution -- November Revolution has left a most valuable teaching
for them. Those who are viewing it in this way because of their failure to grasp
the issue correctly are in reality, in tune with the leaders of the Second
International, the Mensheviks, the Socialist Revolutionaries, and even a section
of the Bolsheviks who were still confused at the time of November Revolution,
practising economic determinism which is alien to Marxism-Leninism and
dialectical materialism and which refuses to accept the dialectical relationship
of politics and economy.

But I have already said that November Revolution in Russia was accomplished
under the leadership of Lenin at a time when feudalism had a strong sway over
the rural economy ; the influence of imperialism was still strong and the
capitalist economy could not free itself from the bondage of imperialist finance
capital. But notwithstanding his knowledge of all this Lenin showed that after
the assumption of state power by the bourgeois Kerensky government since the
working class in alliance with the poor peasantry had to capture power by
overthrowing the bourgeoisie and since the object of revolution was the
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to that extent and in that
sense the revolution of Russia was politically a socialist revolution. But as in
the economic and social fields many of the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist
tasks of bourgeois democratic revolution still remained unaccomplished, those
tasks had to be incorporated as the derivatives in the main political strategy
and programme of socialist revolution, that is to say, in the programme of
November Revolution.

And these unaccomplished tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution would
have to be accomplished under the leadership of the proletariat after seizure of
power. Otherwise peasants would get no land, there would be no end of kulaks'
domination, feudalism could not be completely abolished, the basis for
independent development of the economy would not be established, peace would not
be restored in the country and there would be no solution to the food problem.
For, in the present era of imperialism and proletarian revolution or, in other
words, in the era when capitalism has turned out and out reactionary, it is not
possible for the modern bourgeoisie, unlike the bourgeoisie of the previous era,
to accomplish all the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution. Therefore,
if the peasantry has to be completely freed even economically from feudal
exploitation, for that the seizure of power by the proletariat, the socialist
revolution, is indispensable.

From the time of seizure of power in 1917 till 1919, the working class strove
to move in alliance with the whole of the peasantry and certainly with the
middle peasantry in order to accomplish these tasks of the bourgeois democratic
revolution. Yet the principal strategic slogan and the concept of alignment of
forces of the November Revolution, i.e., the socialist revolution, was alliance
with the poor peasantry. But even though the principal strategic slogan of the
socialist revolution was alliance with the poor peasantry, because the
unaccomplished tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution still remained as
its derivative tasks, which after the seizure of power the proletariat was to
accomplish, e.g., complete abolition of feudalism, redistribution of land,
saving the poor and middle peasants from utter destitution and poverty and thus
to proceed towards socialist reconstruction step by step, for this reason they
had to continue with the slogan of alliance with the whole of the peasantry for
quite some time even after the November Revolution.

Without the working class leadership even the bourgeois democratic
revolutions in this era cannot reach their logical culmination

So, this concrete lesson that the November Revolution has brought to light is
of immense significance. Since then the question of establishing the leadership
of the working class over the national liberation struggles throughout the world
-- the theory of which had hitherto been guiding the international communist
movement -- assumed further importance. Lenin formulated this theory while
combating Plekhanov. Plekhanov contended that because the bourgeois democratic
revolution was essentially a bourgeois revolution its leadership must also be
with the bourgeoisie ; at the same time because, centring round the world
proletarian revolution, the proletariat had already appeared in the arena, the
working class should also share the leadership. That is to say, he raised the
slogan of joint leadership. Lenin refuted this idea and said : No. Either the
hegemony of the proletariat or the hegemony of the bourgeoisie must be
established over the revolution. If the hegemony of the bourgeoisie is
established then it will mean a treachery to revolution, and it cannot but end
half way. On the contrary, if the hegemony of the working class is established,
then and only then can these revolutions be led to their successful culmination.
Lenin showed through this theory that, first of all, in the present era of
imperialism and proletarian revolution, the bourgeois democratic revolutions in
different countries had also become part of the world socialist or proletarian
revolution.

Secondly, he said, in the present era of moribund capitalism when world
capitalism had entered the stage of imperialism and turned out and out
reactionary, the bourgeoisie in all the countries, even the bourgeoisie who were
participating in the national liberation movements in colonial countries, ceased
to have a revolutionary character which they had as a class during the
eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. For, they are also part and parcel of
international reactionary bourgeoisie.

So, although the national bourgeoisie will participate in many cases in the
anti-imperialist liberation movements, they will make compromises with
imperialism-feudalism at the same time out of fear complex of revolution. And if
in this era the leadership of these liberation movements remains in their hands,
the national democratic revolution or liberation movements cannot reach their
logical culmination. Thus, this instability of the bourgeoisie in the national
liberation movement -- sometimes making compromises with imperialism and
sometimes fighting it, sometimes raising slogans against feudalism and sometimes
making compromises, now coming in the arena of battle and again entering into
dialogue through the backdoor, making compromises, sometimes remaining with the
masses supporting their radical slogans and sometimes coming into direct
opposition to those -- if the working class succeeds in paralysing this
instability of the bourgeoisie, being part of the international reactionary
bourgeoisie, and give defeat to the bourgeois double-faced policy by
establishing its leadership, then only can these national liberation movements
attain their logical culmination. Failing that, even if these liberation
movements in backward countries become successful under the leadership of the
bourgeoisie, through these liberation movements the bourgeois democratic
revolutions will end in a half-baked and truncated manner. Independence will be
achieved, no doubt, though the main object of freedom will not be attained. The
country will not be totally free from the fetters of imperialist servitude, nor
will feudalism be completely abolished to bring about revolutionary
transformation of the agricultural economy. That is why, in order to lead these
bourgeois democratic revolutions to their logical culmination in the present
era, what is essential is that, first, they are to be regarded as part of world
socialist revolution and, secondly, they must be conducted under the leadership
of the working class. It is after the Russian revolution, i.e., the November
Socialist Revolution that the revolutionaries of different countries started to
give proper recognition to this theory and realize its real significance which
so long had remained as a theory only. The most advanced section of the
liberation movements all over the world, that is, those with revolutionary
socialist consciousness at once tried to accept it with due importance.

Now, compare the situation of our country today with the perspective of the
then Russia. Judge it for yourself whether feudalism in our economy today exists
with the same vigour as it did in the economy of Russia after the bourgeoisie
had come to power before the October Revolution or at the time Lenin brought out
his April Theses. In my opinion, in the agrarian economy of our country
there is nothing left of feudalism in so far as economic relation or production
relation is concerned. What still remains of feudalism in our country is its
hangover in the superstructure of the present-day society alloyed with habits,
customs, tastes and culture and morality. Those who understand the relationship
between base and superstructure in this way that with the change of economic
base its superstructure also changes and, therefore, the hangover of the
superstructure of the old society does not continue for some time in the
superstructure of the new society should better not enter into serious
theoretical discussions. They should better not enter the field of theoretical
discourses on politics. For, I hold that they are quite unfit for such serious
theoretical discussions. They do not even understand what is the relationship
between the base and the superstructure. Superstructure develops upon the base
-- does this mean that as the base changes, the superstructure changes, that is,
there is an automatic change of the superstructure along with each and every
change of the base? A new superstructure that develops on a base carries within
it the hangover of the old superstructure for quite some time as a result of
which serious conflict arises within the new superstructure itself. Everything
in the superstructure of the old society does not disappear by one stroke
following the change in the base. Any thinking contrary to this is unhistorical
and I do not know whether such a queer conception about the relationship between
the base and superstructure has any place at all in Marxism. Of course, I do not
lay claim to be erudite or a scholar. In our country many Marxist 'pundits' have
appeared. I do not lay claim to have a much better understanding compared to
them! But from the little that I understand of Marxism, I firmly hold that this
is not a correct understanding of the relationship between base and
superstructure.

Advocates of people's democratic revolution in our country are in reality
practising economic determinism

I have already said that in our country those who hold that without the
completion of all the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution we cannot
pass over to the stage of socialist revolution are in fact practising economic
determinism. In this context I would like to deal with another point. Since
bourgeois democratic revolution was called national liberation movement in the
Second Congress of the Third International, any reference to such independence
struggles as bourgeois democratic revolution is considered by some now as a
deviation from Leninism and they would make it an issue for discussion. Those
who think that to call this phase of social revolution as the phase of bourgeois
democratic revolution in general is a complete deviation from Leninism and,
without taking into consideration the fundamental point at issue, would start a
debate on such a ticklish point should know that in Stalin's Problems of
Leninism and later on in many writings of Mao Zedong -- not his writings of
recent times but his writings of that period when they, too, considered Mao
Zedong as a Marxist -- this phase of social revolution has been referred to as
the stage of bourgeois democratic revolution, time and again. It was recommended
in the Second Congress of the Third International that the national independence
struggle should not be termed as bourgeois democratic revolution but should
better be termed as national liberation movement instead, because these
struggles differed from the old bourgeois revolution in certain respects. For,
the bourgeoisie in that era was revolutionary but it is no more so. In this era
revolution will suffer if the hegemony of the bourgeoisie is established over
the national liberation movements and that is why the necessity of establishing
the hegemony of the working class over these movements was emphasized. Taking
note of these characteristics of the present era it was recommended at the
Second Congress of the Third International that these national liberation
movements should be freed from the influence of the bourgeoisie. But in any
discussion relating to the determination of the stage of revolution everybody
uses the terms bourgeois democratic revolution, socialist revolution. By that
heavens will not fall. Again it is not correct on their part to think that by
this the bourgeoisie is considered progressive and for that reason it is being
called bourgeois democratic revolution.

In this regard, I would call your attention to an important observation of
the Chinese Communist Party. The CPC is saying that when one fights against a
tendency, a particular act of injustice, another tendency, another injustice may
sometimes lie hidden within the struggle itself. This has been prevalent for
long in the Marxist movement. For instance, the Second Congress of the Third
International sought to remove a confusion -- but see the result!

It is known to all that from social, economic and political aspects, the
entire bourgeois democratic revolution constitutes a single stage in social
revolution. Now suppose, the bourgeois democratic revolution proceeds to some
extent under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. Thereafter it is found that it
is not proceeding a step further and that without the leadership of the working
class it is impossible to complete the incomplete phase or the remaining part of
the bourgeois democratic revolution or even to successfully pursue the
revolutionary programmes of that phase in any way. Then it is clear that the
strategy and tactics to be adopted by the working class in completing the
remaining part of the bourgeois democratic revolution under its leadership must
be different from the strategy and tactics followed by the bourgeoisie in
providing leadership to the earlier part of the bourgeois democratic revolution.
But from the perspective of the stage of social revolution the entire period
belongs to a single stage -- the stage of bourgeois democratic revolution. We
find that a section of Marxists is making a mess of the whole thing. They have
miserably failed to grasp the point following Marxist dialectical methodology.
They contend how can the stage of a revolution be skipped over! And as it cannot
be skipped over, so they add one more stage of revolution in between. For them,
therefore, the stages of revolution are no longer the bourgeois democratic
revolution and the socialist revolution only. There is yet another stage of
revolution in between the two -- which they name as the people's democratic
revolution. This misconception stems from two things.

First, they have failed to correctly grasp the connotation and the political
essence of the term 'national democratic revolution'. They have failed to grasp
precisely in what context, under what circumstances and with what object Lenin
used this term. What was the necessity for coining this expression and what is
the limit of its applicability? If anybody fails to grasp these correctly then a
muddle is inevitable and that is what has happened with them. Secondly, they are
under the influence of economic determinism and because of this they contend
that until the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution are completed there
can be no socialist revolution. They think that with the attainment of
independence, one phase of the bourgeois democratic revolution has come to an
end -- overthrowing the old class, be it the foreign imperialism or monarchy --
and a national independent state has been established. The bourgeoisie,
according to them, subject to variation from country to country, have gone
against the revolution either as a whole or partially. So, the bourgeoisie as a
class no longer remains an ally of revolution and, even if an ally somewhere, is
undoubtedly a vacillating ally, and there is no guarantee whether they will
participate in the revolution. But from the economic aspect the stage continues
to remain at the stage of the bourgeois democratic revolution because the
anti-feudal, anti-imperialist tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution and
those of industrial revolution have not yet been completed. In such a situation
what will be the stage of revolution? They take it that this revolution is an
'intermediary' between the bourgeois democratic revolution and the socialist
revolution ! This is the source from which their confusion of people's
democratic revolution is actually generated. That is, they have completely
failed to grasp what is the real significance of Lenin's observation that
'politics supersedes economy'. They have failed to understand that the main
question of every revolution is the question of seizure of political power.
Stalin put it more lucidly : which class or classes are to be overthrown from
the state power by which class in alliance with which other classes -- such is
the fundamental question of every revolution.

Otherwise, it is known to every student of history that when Lenin was
drafting his April Theses all the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist
tasks were not completed in Russia. If anybody does not know it or if his
knowledge is confined merely to certain points which Stalin was referring to in
his book Problems of Leninism while answering to certain confused views
of some, and in that case, if they also fail to realize the underlying meaning
of those answers, that is to say, what were the specific answers of Stalin to
which of the specific confusions, where lay the confusion, centring round which
concrete historic event was this confusion and how Stalin answered all that --
if they fail to grasp precisely all this, they will not understand as to why the
November Revolution was a socialist revolution even though many of the
anti-feudal and anti-imperialist tasks remained unaccomplished after the
February Revolution in Russia. Because these anti-feudal and anti-imperialist
tasks remained unaccomplished before the November Socialist Revolution, because
the November Revolution declared the programme for their completion and raised
slogans about these, a group confused it as the revolution to fulfil the
unaccomplished tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution. Stalin gave a reply
to them : No, inasmuch as from the political point of view the November
Revolution was a revolution to capture state power by the proletariat
overthrowing the bourgeoisie from power, in that sense and to that extent it was
a socialist revolution. And the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist tasks of the
bourgeois democratic revolution that still remained unaccomplished in the
economic field would have to be fulfilled as the derivative tasks or byproducts
within the main programme of socialist revolution after the seizure of power by
the proletariat. So long these tasks were not completed, the Bolshevik Party had
to raise these demands of the bourgeois democratic revolution, rally the support
of the whole of the peasantry and had to do so, not only before and during the
November Revolution or immediately after it but even after the Constituent
Assembly was dissolved in 1919.

So, from this point of view the lesson of the November Revolution is very
important for the workers, peasants and youth of our country who are engaged in
revolutionary struggle. The workers-peasants and youth who will fight the
revolutionary battle -- against whom will they fight? The question of
determining who is the enemy and who is the ally and what should be the tactics
of struggle -- all this is intimately connected with the fundamental question of
the strategy of revolution. If they consider that our revolution is people's
democratic revolution then outwardly whatever slogans they may raise in meetings
and from platforms, whatever struggles they may conduct, it is sure that
underhand they would develop a sympathy for the rich peasants in the villages
that would ultimately result in unity with them. Consequently, the peasants'
movements that they conduct would inevitably come under the firm grip and
influence of the rich peasants. To regard Indian revolution as people's
democratic revolution would lead to either hobnob with the rich peasants this
way or that way or towards adventures. This will yield no result. Rather by this
the class struggle of the poor and landless peasants and the agricultural
labourers against the rich peasants who are the mainstay of capitalism in the
rural economy will be weakened and the interests of the poor and landless
peasants and the agricultural labourers will be sacrificed in favour of the rich
peasants. On the other hand, based on their fanciful theory of people's
democratic revolution on the assumed existence of progressive national
bourgeoisie somewhere, the party and its leaders would invariably hobnob with
the social high-ups. Maybe behind the screen, but happen it must. Contrary to
that, whatever may be the sacrifices of the rank and file members outwardly for
the sake of revolution, this is bound to happen with their leaders inside the
party and this may not be in the know of the rank and file members who make such
sacrifices.

For, in this people's democratic revolution the progressive role of the
national bourgeoisie is recognized. The advocates of people's democratic
revolution do not intend to overthrow the bourgeoisie from state power. They aim
at overthrowing the monopolists whom they characterize as another class, the
monopoly bourgeoisie. I have made elaborate discussions elsewhere on this point
many times before and have shown that the rule of monopoly capital is nothing
other than the rule of capitalism and that the hegemony of the monopoly capital
is the hegemony of the bourgeoisie as a class. Without the rule of capitalism
monopoly capital cannot wield state power. From any knowledge of Marxism, nobody
can come to a conclusion contrary to this -- as for myself with whatever little
I understand of Marxism, it is not possible for me to hold any other view. It
may be possible for other theoreticians, but not for me. This is simply beyond
my comprehension. For, monopoly capitalism indicates a definite or particular
stage of capitalism, a higher stage. Once monopoly capitalism is born, rule of
the bourgeoisie means rule of monopoly capital. To say that there is domination
of monopoly capital and it is to be overthrown but at the same time to call the
national bourgeoisie an ally of revolution means, in reality, denial of the
existence of the bourgeois state itself and refusal of the fundamental task of
overthrowing the bourgeoisie through revolution from the state power.

Ours is a capitalist state

Judging from all aspects you can see for yourself that our state is a
capitalist state. Here in our country slogans are being raised for introducing
wholesale state trading in food grains. The ruling party is at times bringing
measures to introduce wholesale state trading in food grains -- whether they are
successful or not is altogether a different matter. Levy is being imposed on
food grains. The agricultural commodities have been transformed into principal
commodities of the national capitalist market and everything relating to these
commodities is governed by the laws of the national capitalist market. It is now
being debated as how to combat the impact of inflation on the agrarian economy.
If you care to examine the issue taking all this into consideration, then you
will find that our agrarian economy, too, is entirely guided by the capitalist
relation of production[1].

Even a common man can easily understand that an industrial worker produces on
the basis of capitalist relation of production. But what are the characteristic
features by which we understand that capitalism has infiltrated agrarian
economy? Lenin has laid down clear-cut guideline in this regard. He has clearly
shown that in determining the character of agricultural economy it is not at all
relevant whether the agricultural economy is backward or advanced or whether the
cultivation is made with the help of machinery or by the age-old, outmoded
method. Further, whether the cultivation is done in small land holdings or in
big farms -- this too cannot be a relevant point in determining the character of
agricultural economy, whether it is feudal or capitalist or socialist. Then what
are the criteria for determining the character of an agricultural economy ?
Lenin has said that it is to be determined by the nature of trade and commerce
of the agricultural commodities[2].
That is, what has become the character of agricultural produce in the villages?
What is the nature of trade and commerce of this produce? These factors mainly
determine the character of agricultural economy -- whether feudal or capitalist
or socialist.

Why our agricultural economy, which is a capitalist one and not a feudal one,
is not mechanized is a separate question. This question is related to the crisis
of the market of capitalism ; it is linked up with the various factors that
stand in the way of uninterrupted industrial development and is connected with
the acute unemployment problem which is a serious threat to the state. I hear
that some are advancing many queer arguments in this regard. I have heard that
some have even gone to such an extent as to argue that because the bourgeoisie
want to perpetuate the unemployment problem, that is to say, as it is written in
the Marxian classics that the bourgeoisie create and sustain a reserve army of
unemployeds to have a better bargain with the workers, so our argument that the
Indian bourgeoisie are not in favour of mechanizing agriculture thoroughly as it
would create millions of unemployeds in the countryside, threatening the
existence of the state, is tantamount, according to them, to praising the
bourgeoisie as if they do not want to create unemployment problem ! What a
strange argument ! I would earnestly appeal to those who are dabbling in this
manner, they had better not enter into such questions so immaturely. They should
study a little more, acquire more knowledge, and should understand a little
more. It is not that simple ! The bourgeoisie wants to perpetuate the
unemployment problem in order to have a better bargain -- simply knowing this we
cannot completely grasp the issue. Did not Hitler resolve, even though
temporarily, the unemployment problem in Germany by militarizing the economy ?
History is replete with such instances. However, that is not my point of
discussion here. Besides, here the problem is totally different. It is one thing
to say that the capitalists will definitely perpetuate the unemployment problem
because this is the general law of capitalist economy. But it is entirely a
different thing to say that when in the urban areas the burden of unemployment
has already assumed such gigantic proportions that the ruling class is
desperately trying to grapple with it, at that time to go in for modernization
and mechanization of agricultural economy knowing fully well that it is sure to
create millions of additional unemployeds in the countryside at one stroke and
further intensify the pressure on the state is a risk which the bourgeois state
cannot take. From this apprehension they are obstructing modernization and
mechanization of agriculture and instead are resorting to working upon
unscientific ideas and courses, taking to "Green Revolution", etc. Although
there is so much scarcity of agricultural produce, they are in no way inclined
to modernize and mechanize agriculture -- they are afraid of it. So, does it
mean that the bourgeoisie do not want to perpetuate unemployment problem ?
Contrarily, does it mean that because the bourgeoisie want to perpetuate the
unemployment problem, they will, on their own initiative, create at one stroke
millions of unemployeds in the countryside in addition to the already alarming
unemployment problem in the city, close down their factories and thereby
aggravate the crisis so much so that it will hasten the process of revolution --
simply because the bourgeoisie want to perpetuate the unemployment problem?
Those who argue like this -- why do they at all enter into such political
discussions, I really fail to understand! Are they at all competent to enter
into discussions and debates on these subjects? Such irrefutable(!) Marxist
arguments are being made nowadays, I hear ! I would request them to carry on
such 'profound' discourses and try to prove that we do not understand a whit of
Marxism ! It will do us no harm. We have full faith in the people. They have the
power of reasoning. They will judge, they will examine, they will ponder over
and ultimately will grasp the issue. All these things are due to their failure
to correctly grasp the lessons of the November Revolution.

Movements must have before them the correct base political line

November Socialist Revolution provides us with many lessons, all of which
cannot be covered in a single discussion. Much confusion prevails over the
fundamental political question in our country. We are moving in a vicious
circle, we are trying to find the way out. If we are to come out of the impasse
to find the correct path then we have to grasp this fundamental lesson of the
November Revolution. We have to understand that if the base political line
before the movement is not correctly determined, then, like the innumerable
struggles in the past, in the future, too, the struggles for emancipation of the
exploited people will inevitably end in a fiasco time and again. Those who say
that there is no revolutionary force in our country, nor there is revolutionary
will and fervour among the people, the youth lack fighting spirit, lack the
spirit to sacrifice their lives, the workers-peasants lag behind in fighting
zeal and in the spirit to give away everything for the struggle, deny history,
in fact. I say, this is not true. The peasants and workers, the toilers,
countless students and youth of middle-class families have plunged themselves in
movements time and again. "Fight the oppressors, bring about revolution" --
whenever anybody at an opportune moment raised this slogan, having some
organizational strength to bring on this type of activities, in that case we saw
how waves of movement swept the country. "We want revolution" -- simply this
passion, this dream alone spurred the youth to get involved in struggles and lay
down their lives, again and again. What kind of revolution, where and how will
it come about, under whose leadership, what will be its correct line -- they
didn't give any thought at all to such questions.

So, that our youth don't want to fight, that the workers and peasants of our
country don't want to fight, that they do not have the fighting mettle and
death-defying spirit for revolution like the workers, peasants and youth of
Russia, China and Vietnam, that our youth, peasants and workers want revolution
only if somebody can bring it about for them by proxy, otherwise, by nature,
they are unduly attached to peacefulness and want to avoid trouble and fighting
-- all these are not true. The real problem lies elsewhere. They did not have
before them the correct path, the correct base political line -- here lies the
real problem. And if the strategic line is not correct when it comes to
determining the tactics of the movement and its object, determining the stage of
revolution -- if the realization is wrong, in other words, if the base political
line and the very object of movement is wrong, then however much struggling zeal
and self-sacrificing spirit the people may have, all their sacrifice and
martyrdom will go to waste. But does it go to waste for that moment alone? Is it
not also true that this failure envelops the minds of those taking part in the
struggle with despair and frustration? Doubts about movement and struggle creep
in their mind. "We fought so hard, so many people gave their lives, we suffered
so much but what did we achieve" -- this is what haunts their mind. They start
questioning the political cadres of the leftist parties: "We supported the
movement. So many gave their lives but what is the result? In our country we
have no hope. Oh, we have seen much of you, the political parties. You are all
the same. None of you, none of these parties can do anything good." These
feelings of despair cloud the minds of the people as an aftermath of the failure
of a movement.

What is of more concern is that with this way of thinking they confuse even a
simple general truth -- a trend which very much prevails now. I would like to
elaborate a bit on this point. Let us assume, as they say, that none of us can
do anything good. Even if their presumption is correct, then what will they do?
Even if they think we are of no worth, still can they go on living life in this
way ? Can they continue that way ? Can it satisfy hunger ? Prices are going up,
there is no job security, land is going out of hand, unemployment problem is
increasing, families are disintegrating, there is no peace in the families ;
love, affection, compassion are all drying up, sons and daughters are developing
inhuman traits before your own eyes, you yourselves are also threatened with
degradation and about that, too, you are fully aware -- will you allow all this
to go on? No, this cannot continue for long. So, what happens? At times,
humanity, or quintessence of a noble human life in them breaks its slumber. Even
if they do not have concern for humanity, they can ill-afford to ignore the dire
necessities of their bare existence. Because, hunger is a stern reality. Without
consciousness, without a high ethical-moral tone, one may not respond to the
call of humanity. But unconcerned certainly one cannot be to one's hunger. So,
even after failure, they have to stand up again. But when they rise, they again
react in frenzy or like a child -- full of impatience and incoherence. For where
is the necessary network of organization for the movements? Where is the correct
political leadership ? In this way, at intervals of five or seven, eight or ten
years come waves of movement in the country. And after suffering defeat in each
struggle people succumb to despair. To them there appears to be no hope. Yet
these defeated people, after some time, become restive again and start to cry
for a change, for doing something. So, struggle is needed and they cannot but
come into the arena of struggle. Today or two years after, if not after two
years, then five years hence, they are to join. When they will join in struggle,
they will again show the same infantile reaction, they will pick any path and
plunge into fight, chanting some slogan or other, believing that they are
treading the path of revolution and they will lay down their lives. They will
meet with defeat again. Again they will be misled. So, we are to bring to the
fore of every movement this fundamental teaching of the November Socialist
Revolution.

The Communist Party of China at their Tenth Congress has again upheld this
lesson of November Revolution in their own way, in a lucid manner. They have
said that if the ideology and the base political line are incorrect then even if
somebody is in possession of enormous power and influence at one time,
ultimately he will lose them all. The term 'ideology' covers a wide range. The
morals and principles, ethics and culture -- all these questions of a movement
are covered by the term 'ideology'. There is a trend in the movements of our
country that we will fight, we will raise slogans but we feel no need for
restraint in our utterances, we feel no need to have any sense of ethics and
culture, no business with politeness, no concern for sobre and decent behaviour
with others -- this is causing immense harm. Those who reflect this trend within
the movement think they have the right to talk in any manner they choose, they
have the right to insult the elderly people with abusive words and that there is
nothing wrong in obscene gesticulation and body language while raising slogans
in the streets -- revolution is sure to come simply because the slogans they are
raising are for revolution. But they would do well to remember that this does
not happen. This can never happen. Because people are starving they may be
attracted to movement by slogans but they get scared on seeing the obscene
gesticulations and on hearing the vulgar remarks by cadres. People shy away at
their utter selfishness. As a result, they become sceptical and suspicious about
the very object of movement.

One more essential point we are to bear in mind in this connection, that is,
revolution cannot be achieved merely on the basis of organizational strength.
For the success of revolution, not only a steel-strong organization of millions
and millions of people is needed but what is more, an overwhelming section of
the population remaining outside the orbit of organization must become passive
supporters of the revolution. If not passive supporters, they should at least be
benevolently neutral to revolution and should not go against the revolution in
any case. This condition is essential for the success of a revolution. Say, from
a liberal estimate, if we accept that half-a-million of people is the combined
strength of all the parties standing for revolution, even then it is an
insignificant minority compared with the total population of India. If,
therefore, we do not care for and are totally unconcerned about the ideas of
morality and ethics, of decency and civility, of character of this vast
multitude of our people, then we will simply be rootless.

By ideology we do not mean, therefore, some high-sounding words borrowed from
outside. Norms and principles of movement, sobriety and ethics, taste and
culture -- ideology encompasses all these. Those who take part in the movement,
those who lead the movement, they all move among the masses. Hence, if word gets
out about something, say, in Calcutta, then by word of mouth it spreads to the
remotest village of Bankura just like a rumour without the aid of newspapers, so
also the impressions that grow from the mode of life of the leaders and their
conduct and behaviour reach the millions. Hence, if some think that people are
not going to bother about their personal lives and therefore they are free to
lead their lives in whatever way they like and that revolution will come only
from pulpit speeches about revolution, they would do well to remember that it is
not that simple. Nowhere did revolution come in this way. The Chinese Communist
Party once again has reiterated this truth. They have reminded that if the
ideology is wrong, if the base political line is wrong, then even if someone has
strength at one time, it will not last ultimately. One cannot bring about
revolution by strength alone but would only cause harm. They have cited the
concrete instance of Lin Biao who usurped the state power, the party power and
the military power -- he wanted to grab everything, but he could not retain
anything. Because the base political line, the ideology, the morals and
principles, the cultural-ethical values, the concept of life -- all that he
stood for were incorrect. So you see, falsehood cannot reign for long.
Exploiting the low level of consciousness of the masses, destroying their
logical bent of mind, it may rule for some time but never for all the time. From
all these concrete instances we are to take lesson.

Those who, from their own selfish ends, foster blindness in the party ranks
-- even if our party did the same, if it tells its workers not to study, not to
engage in debates and discussions with others, not try to know others'
viewpoints -- in that case, despite all the lofty principles that our party
advocates, it will mean in reality that under whatever pretext we want to kill
the logical bent of mind of the society. The political workers are called the
'General Staff' of the revolutionary masses, their most advanced and vanguard
detachment. At least they are supposed to possess a higher standard of
theoretical understanding than that of the masses. Then what happens if even
these political workers lose their rational temper ? It is one thing if they
discard others' viewpoints after giving them patient hearing and making a
careful examination. But what happens if they develop a temper of not studying,
of not getting to know others' viewpoints ? It generates blindness,
narrow-mindedness in all strata of society. Then all the obscure ideas get an
easy access to the society. And once the logical bent of mind dies out in the
society, taking advantage of this the social high-ups having the power of
capital and state-backing at their disposal purchase the youth. They promote
unethical means of livelihood among the youth and the people at large and pave
the ground for fascism in the country. So if any party indulges in this type of
activity, be it on the pretext of party discipline or any other pretext, even if
it is our party -- it should be charged with committing a heinous crime. What to
speak of giving leadership to mass movement or revolution, it should stand
accused of criminal charge at the bar of mass movement. That is why it is a
common experience that the true revolutionaries, the Marxists in any country,
did never discourage polemical discussions and ideological struggles. On the
contrary, they have given strong encouragement to it within the united mass
movement. What was their sole concern was to see that these debates and
ideological struggles were not conducted in such a way as to disrupt their
unity, that is, caused no obstacle to united struggle against the main or common
enemy and were not reduced to the level of physical assaults to suppress others.
These and these alone are to be taken care of and guarded against while
conducting ideological struggles. But encouragement to ideological struggle
within the united mass movement is an imperative necessity. But this is exactly
what is being obstructed in our country.

Change of this situation is inevitable

Before I conclude my speech on the November Socialist Revolution, once more I
would like to remind my peasant-worker-middle class comrades who have assembled
here of some points. I would like to tell you that however difficult may be the
situation today, you have to constantly bear in mind an important point which
persons with intellect, the dialectical materialists and the devotees of science
knew only, but common people, even if they could understand the reason of that,
yet they could not wholeheartedly accept it. They had their doubts as to whether
it was at all possible that the starving, ignorant and the illiterate masses
could ever get organized to give birth to such an alternative political power of
theirs, the force of which could smash the deadweight of the repressive
bourgeois state organ which has at its command so much power, so much might of
the military, the power of capital, and thus accomplish revolution. The November
Revolution, for the first time in the history, proved to the world, not in
theory alone, but by concrete instance that -- yes, it was possible. The
November Revolution, at the same time, provided clear answer to another question
about which, too, people had their doubts. People used to think that it was with
the help of an army of clerks and bureaucrats, the servitors of the vested
interest, that the administration would have to be run even after the revolution
-- they would stay on even then. As agents, it is they who would do everything,
going against the people on behalf of the reactionaries. In that case how can
the proletariat bring about a change even if they will seize state power? Lenin
gave the answer : No, there is a lot of difference between the two situations.
He said : when the state power will really be in the hands of the proletariat --
not through words only, not a power through ballots, not a showy fake power, but
where the condition has been created that the peasants' committees, the workers'
committees, the Soviets or revolutionary councils, after seizure of state power
are actually exercising control from the lowest level to the centre and the real
revolutionary party of the proletariat is maintaining both co-ordination and
centralism of these bodies -- that is to say, when the state power is actually
in the hands of the proletariat as a class, the proletariat can easily take
appropriate steps against those bureaucrats who would defy the authority or who
would fail to discharge their duties in accordance with the principles and
ideology of the proletariat. Here we must remember another point : they are
servants only; they serve their master in exchange of money. So, when the
workers and peasants will be their real master and be in the authority, many of
these educated sections, the clerks and the officers, just as they are
bootlickers of the bourgeois masters now, they will obey the workers and
peasants, will accept their authority for earning money, for getting jobs, for
retaining their jobs. If they dare defy, they will be removed and it will not at
all be impossible then to give birth to that force from among the
workers-peasants capable of running the administration. And this was proved by
the November Revolution. The ignorant workers and peasants of Russia under the
leadership of the Bolshevik Party seized the power and afterwards they even
succeeded to bring a section of the bureaucracy under their control. This became
possible because their revolution was not seizure of power through ballot, or
through meetings and processions only, or through stray acts of wielding lathis
and brickbatting. Their revolution succeeded because of the emergence of
people's alternative political power through a process of gigantic human
endeavour. By the emergence of alternative political power of the people is
meant formation of the workers' and peasants' committees -- these committees
being the instruments for leading and conducting their revolutionary struggles
through which the ignorant workers and peasants, lacking in formal education,
will acquire and develop the organizing capability and talent, that is to say,
the talent and capability to keep in full view and tackle the many problems and
complexities of the organization thus developing in different stages throughout
the country. So, it is through the revolutionary struggles that the political
power of the people develops, and this political power of the people as an
alternative parallel system can take charge of the state. Thus, the notion that
the workers and peasants cannot run the state -- this too was proved wrong by
the November Revolution. Taking lessons from and being inspired by the November
Revolution, the workers and peasants of Europe, China, Vietnam, etc., came
forward to establish their own state in their respective countries.

While recalling the lessons of November Revolution what you are to remember
is that a change in the present situation is bound to come. Because the
bourgeoisie are powerful, because they have in their hands the mighty state
power, they will remain like a millstone round our necks and reign for ever --
had it been so, it would have been no doubt good for the bourgeoisie and such a
thought might give them pleasure -- but this never happens. But how soon will
come the change -- it all depends upon you. How soon will come the revolution,
depends on how much time you will require to develop people's alternative
political power in the concrete form of revolutionary councils and people's
committees like the Soviets through unitedly conducting movements organized on
the correct base political line and ideology and under the leadership of the
real revolutionary party of the proletariat. But remember, you can never achieve
revolution by shirking the real task, just by shouting slogans, or through
tricks in the ballot boxes. You can achieve revolution only when you have been
able to give birth to people's own political power on the basis of correct
revolutionary base political line and ideology and under the leadership of a
genuine revolutionary party of the proletariat. Electoral battles that you
fight, the democratic movements on economic demands that you build up -- if you
can view and build up all these struggles as conducive to your main
revolutionary struggles, then and then only, these will be purposive. Other than
this, all these are meaningless. If you can grasp this, then along with this you
also have to understand that the mass movements which you develop have their ups
and downs, advances and retreats, successes as also defeats and setbacks --
because there are twists and turns along its path. But what is of decisive
importance while developing these democratic movements is whether you have been
able, on the basis of correct ideology and principles, to correctly determine
the base political line and the stage of revolution, i.e., whether you have
correctly realized that the main task of this revolution is to overthrow the
bourgeoisie that is now in state power in the place of the imperialists.

India is in the stage of socialist revolution

Let us not enter into fruitless discussions and hair-splitting arguments as
to what extent feudalism exists in our country. I have shown earlier that feudal
economic relation or relation of production no more exists in our country, what
remains of feudalism are its remnants in the superstructure of the presentday
society alloyed with habits, customs, tastes, morals and the form. Despite all
this, even if we accept for argument's sake the contention of those who say that
feudal land relation still remains in the rural economy, then also, is it not a
fact that the bourgeoisie are in control of the Indian state and that even in
the midst of ongoing acute crisis of world capitalism and its concomitant
effects on the internal economic situation of the country, they are further
consolidating Indian capitalism ? If it is so, then they must admit that the
Indian state is undoubtedly a capitalist state and here the main programme of
revolution is the seizure of power by the proletariat overthrowing the ruling
bourgeoisie from state power, that is to say, the Indian revolution is a
socialist revolution.

Let me remind you, in this connection, of an important observation of
Lenin's. Once Rosa Luxemburg entered into a debate on the question of
determining the character of a national state with Kautsky -- Kautsky had not
yet turned a renegade. It was Rosa's contention that the countries which were
politically independent but economically totally subjugated by the imperialist
countries or foreign capitalist countries could not be called independent
bourgeois states or national states nor could the state machines of those
countries be called capitalist state machines. Kautsky pointed out : No, the
character of these states was that of independent national bourgeois state. Rosa
replied on the basis of her above conception : No, independence of these states
was only nominal; so, the people of these countries would have to direct their
main struggle against imperialism and against the collaborating bourgeoisie of
those countries, just as the advocates of people's democratic revolution in our
country are pleading today. In reply, Lenin, supporting Kautsky, said that those
who think that because of their economic subjugation by imperialist capital
these states are not independent national bourgeois states have completely
failed to grasp the real significance of this era of imperialism. They have
completely failed to realize that in the present era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution this phenomenon was quite natural. Due to the uneven
development of capitalism, a few capitalist countries have much advanced and are
acting as leaders of the capitalist world -- the leading imperialist countries
-- on which the bourgeoisie of the newly independent countries are bound to be
economically dependent. He also pointed out that not only the small Balkan
states but the mighty Czarist Russia against which some imperialist countries
had to wage war -- over her economy also the rich European countries had a
strong influence. Capitalism that developed there was under the strong
domination of the Western capitalists. But because of this, nobody considered
the Czarist Russia a colony of the imperialists, rather she herself had
introduced a kind of imperialism. Not to speak of this, even America was a
colony of Europe from the point of view of economic dependence, till the close
of the nineteenth century. Does this prove that through the American War of
Independence, no independent national state was founded, no capitalist state
established ? Those who do not accept that the independent states are also
sovereign national states because of their economic dependence on imperialist
capital -- Lenin called them mistaken[3].

Those who do not accept even Lenin's authority should answer a question of
mine. Let them explain how America, which till the close of the nineteenth
century was economically dependent on Europe, has practically made all the
bourgeois countries, the capitalist countries of Europe, economically almost its
colonies ? Certainly, no other revolution took place in America after the War of
Independence. If it had not been a national state, a capitalist state since the
War of Independence, then how was it possible ? So, in determining the stage of
revolution or the character of the state, whether there is decisive presence of
imperialist capital or of feudalism in the economy -- is all this of that much
importance ? This is nothing other than to get embroiled in unnecessary details
devoid of the essence of the matter. Say, for instance, if somebody, while
trying to determine the stage of revolution, spends page after page to give a
vivid description of the distress of the people -- about scarcity of rice and
cereals, how the peasants are getting evicted from their lands, how much land
the poor peasants have under their possession, what is the position in Bihar,
that the labourers are not getting fair wages, people are starving, so on and so
forth, and then solemnly proclaim that in order to fight all this we are to
bring about revolution -- this I mean getting embroiled in unnecessary details
without getting at the substance. The fundamental question of every revolution
is to determine the class character of the state.

Those who are muddling up the fundamental question of determining the class
character of the state by getting entangled in a detailed examination as to what
extent there is decisive presence of feudalism and imperialist capital in our
economy -- I would like to draw their attention to another point. Everybody
knows that even after the establishment of the bourgeois Kerensky government
through the February Revolution in Russia, the Ministry of Defence was in the
hands of members of the Czar family. Moreover, it should also be known to those
having the ABC knowledge of history that still then, there was strong prevalence
of feudalism in Russia. These feudal lords who had political alignment with the
Cadets came to clashes with the Bolsheviks, all through up to November
Revolution. Because of this, did Lenin say in his April Theses while
determining the character of the state that it was a bourgeois-Czarist state
headed by the big bourgeoisie ? Why did he not say so ? Because of the simple
reason that it was the bourgeoisie which was in the state power. And it was this
bourgeoisie that made compromises with feudalism. Before the February
Revolution, it was just the reverse. The feudal lords, the monarchs were then in
the state power and they came into confrontation or made alliance with the
bourgeoisie as per their need. But after the February Revolution the bourgeoisie
was in the state power. They were at times hitting out at feudalism and on
occasions, out of fear complex of revolution, were coming in close alliance with
it. But whatever the bourgeoisie did, it did so as the ruling class from the
position of state power. So, Lenin did not make this mistake. That is why Lenin
did not approach the question of determining the class character of the state in
that way. Rather, it is he who pointed out that the state power in Russia had
passed from the hands of the old class, i.e., Nicholas Czar, into the hands of a
new class, the Russian bourgeoisie. What do we find therefore ? It is evident,
therefore, that in determining the stage of revolution, the fundamental question
is : in the hands of which class is the state power.

Answering Rosa Luxemburg on the point, whether a state is an independent
national bourgeois state and how to determine this, Lenin beautifully explained
that in the context of the prevailing international situation, that is to say,
in the background of crisis in the world capitalism and its impact on the
national economy, if in the given situation the state strives for the freest,
widest and speediest economic development based on capitalist relation of
production -- in my opinion it would better be said, relatively freest, widest
and speediest -- then this is but a capitalist state.[4].

If we judge from this perspective then in India, after its attainment of
independence and the bourgeoisie coming to the state power, even if we do not
clearly understand the character of agricultural production and the land
relation obtaining at present but understand this much that the Indian state is
trying to consolidate Indian capitalism, it would be obvious that this is a
sovereign national state. And in the terminology of Marxism-Leninism, a national
state does not mean a semi-colonial, semi-feudal state but it means a bourgeois
national state. And a bourgeois national state, according to Lenin, is nothing
other than a capitalist state. So, the revolution to smash that capitalist state
machine is the revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie from state power and
to that extent and in that sense the Indian revolution is socialist
revolution. Under whatever pretext, under whatever cover of theory, those who
want to bypass this fundamental question, and in fact want to divert the
attention of the people to unnecessary details, are creating confusion about the
base political line of Indian revolution. Because of this, even when they are
charged with revolutionary fervour, they will be destroying the revolutionary
force by directing their fight against imaginary enemies. Or otherwise, as a
reaction, they will seek shelter and security in safe parliamentary politics.
Nothing can save them from either of these eventualities -- either going to the
safe and secured shelter of parliamentary politics, joining the bandwagon of
revisionism-reformism or, in the reverse, wasting the revolutionary force
through adventure.

Ideological struggle is an essential prerequisite of united mass movement

If the base political line is muddled up then there is bound to be confusion
on the tactical questions, the purpose, principle, practice and mode of
democratic mass movements. Because, the democratic movements which the people
are organizing on so many demands on food, land, against eviction from land, on
curbing of prices of essential commodities, fighting corruption, confiscation of
foreign capital and so on and so forth ; if the main object of these democratic
movements is not the overthrow of the capitalist state machine, then the tactics
of struggle, conduct, norms and principles, tactical selection of time of
struggle, alignment of forces, programme and approach -- all these will be
different. So, in this connection I would like to place before the people
another important point. We are very much misunderstood in the united movement.
We stand for united movement. But in the united movement, we, the different
political parties who participate, have our own respective base political lines
-- and if it is not something casual, if we really mean it, as our party surely
does, then this difference in base political line is sure to have its reflection
in the programme of the united mass movement. Differences are therefore bound to
appear amongst us over the selection of time for movement, its tactics,
political goal and object, how to develop it, with what political tuning and
angularity is it to be developed. We are against any compromise in this conflict
that appears within the united movement, centring round the base political line
and ideology of that joint united movement. That is why they paint us as
disrupter of unity.

Those friends who say that criticism within united movement disrupts the
unity, I think, they are not reflecting the correct approach on the question of
unity-struggle-unity. The Chinese Party in their Tenth Congress has once more
reiterated this principle. They have said that all unity, no struggle, or all
struggle, no unity -- such a concept of unity is erroneous. While criticizing
us, those who say that criticism within the united movement disrupts the unity
forget that even when we carry out an intense struggle within the movement, we
at the same time again and again examine the possibility of unity. This, we
hold, is the correct approach on the question of unity-struggle-unity. So, even
when we develop a united mass movement, difference over the question of tactics
of movement, that is, over the selection of time of movement, the manner in
which the demands are to be raised, style of conducting the movement, the goal
and object and to what extent it can be led towards that end -- all this is
quite natural due to difference in our respective political lines. Since the
programme of movement is the same, hence there can be no difference between us
on such questions -- such a thing never happens. Say, for example, those of us
who are developing united mass movements, we all consider capitalism and the
party of the capitalist class, the Congress, as the main enemy. Otherwise, why
are we coming into the arena of united struggle ? Those who do not consider
capitalism to be the main enemy are not joining in the united struggle. So,
fight against capitalism is a common point. But is it not equally true that
there is difference between us on the tactical approach to this struggle against
capitalism, based on our respective base political lines ? So, this united mass
movement which all of us are coming forward to develop on the basis of a common
agreed programme of democratic movement -- how can it be saved from the tendency
that lies hidden within that very united mass movement to mislead or divert it
from the fundamental goal of anti-capitalist struggle to which it should be led,
without conducting relentless ideological struggles ?

And if we cannot guard against that, then people will fight against Congress
no doubt -- no doubt, they will make self-sacrifices but all these struggles
will go astray. So, you see, Stalin emphasized that intense ideological
struggles must be conducted to defeat the social-democratic forces from within
the revolutionary struggles at all stages of co-ordinating the legal with
illegal movements both within the Proletarian United Front and the United Front
of democratic forces in the phase of democratic movement, if it is a revolution
to overthrow the bourgeoisie from power. Otherwise, capitalism cannot be
overthrown. If the revolution is not one to overthrow capitalism then the
ideological struggle is to be directed against a completely different force. For
example, in the united anti-imperialist freedom movement, in which the national
bourgeoisie takes part, ideological struggle is to be directed against the
national bourgeoisie in order to isolate its influence from over the mainstream
of national freedom struggle. Again, where the national bourgeoisie is in power,
it is against the social-democratic forces within the united movement, the
forces of compromise between labour and capital, who talk of socialism and
Marxism but, in reality, are sham socialists, sham Marxists -- it is against
these forces that the ideological struggle has to be conducted in order to
isolate them. For those who talk of fight against capitalism, Stalin provided
this important thesis : "It is impossible to put an end to capitalism without
putting an end to social-democratism". That is to say, it is his warning that in
this anti-capitalist movement, if through fierce ideological struggles within
the united movement, the different social democratic trends and tendencies that
lie hidden within the movements to lead it astray at critical hours by making
compromises between labour and capital -- if these cannot be disarmed in order
to free the working class and its movement from the influence of these social
democratic trends of thought, the anti-capitalist revolution can never meet with
success. He said that this is one of the main strategic aspects of the
anti-capitalist socialist revolution. Those who grasp the essence of this thesis
of Stalin's, those who realize how many trends and tendencies lie hidden within
the struggle itself, can very well understand why we insist so much on
ideological struggle, why we fight so much on tactical questions, questions of
policy and principle and the base political line within the united movement. We
do it not from any malice, nor do we want to spread any malice. During this
ideological struggle, they may feel injured from some expressions here and
there. But our purpose is not to spread venom or ill-feelings. Sincerely we want
unity of movement, friendship with others and an attitude to understand each
other. That is why we try to point out the mistakes committed by others and in
turn we expect they too will show us any mistakes committed by us. We wish, to
show them in this way their mistakes and that they too will try to show ours.
And let this struggle be in the open before the people participating in the
united movement, so that they can judge for themselves which line is correct and
which is wrong, who are providing the right arguments and who the wrong ones ;
who are confusing the main issue by citing quotations out of context and who are
making painstaking efforts to illumine the truth. To provide the people with
this opportunity to judge for themselves is an indispensable necessity and a
precondition for united mass movement. This is the lesson that we must draw from
the November Revolution.

Three essential preconditions of revolution

The lesson that we must draw from November Revolution is that for the success
of a revolution there are three preconditions. The first is, on the basis of a
correct revolutionary theory, ideology and base political line, the emergence of
a genuine revolutionary party of the proletariat with adequate organizational
strength to provide leadership. Evading this basic issue and undermining the
importance of the base political line, those who speak only of organizational
strength, confuse in reality the main point at issue. This I have already shown,
referring to the observation of the Tenth Congress of the Chinese Communist
Party. Time and again, the various teachings of Lenin's and the history of world
communist movement have upheld the same truth.

The second essential condition for revolution is the United Front. At the
initial stage of democratic movement, building up of United Front of left and
democratic forces and after passing this phase, giving birth to the proletarian
United Front -- a front essential for the anti-capitalist revolution.

The third prerequisite for revolution is to develop through the united mass
movements or joint struggles people's own instrument of struggle, meaning
thereby, giving birth to the political power of the people, which will be unlike
the municipal committees or the local and district committees of the
representatives of the constituent political parties of the United Front. These
will be organizations, more or less like the Soviets of the workers and peasants
in Russia, developed through united struggle of the workers and peasants having
the competence to accept or reject any programme, as also having the initiative
and capability to apply them concretely and independently. Unless these three
essential preconditions of revolution are fulfilled, movements may come in wave
after wave, millions of people may plunge in these movements and lay down their
lives again and again, but there will be no revolution. Revolution and revolt or
agitation are not one and the same. By revolution we mean the politically
conscious, organized and armed uprising of the masses on the basis of a definite
aim and object, a correct ideology and the genuine revolutionary political line
of the proletariat. And the more the people will advance towards fulfilment of
these essential conditions, the brighter will become the prospect of a radical
transformation of the present situation in India and the more purposive will be
the observance of November Revolution anniversaries in our life. With this I
conclude.

Long Live Revolution !

Long Live November Revolution !

Notes

1. Our great departed leader Comrade
Shibdas Ghosh, in his address as the chief guest at the delegates session of the
Twelfth Conference of Paschim Banga Krishak-O-Khetmajur Federation held at Suri
in the district of Birbhum in March 1970, had analysed the capitalist character
of the agricultural economy of India from various angles. In that detailed
discussion he had shown that "Concentration of major portion of land of our
country in the hands of a few, gradual transformation of the major sections of
the rural population into proletariat and semi-proletariat, transformation of
land into the means for investment of capital, owner-wage earner relationship
governing agricultural production, and, above all, transformation of
agricultural produce into commodity of the national capitalist market -- all
this conclusively prove that the agricultural economy of India is out and out
capitalist in character". This speech was later published in the form of a
booklet, captioned Bharatbarsher Krishi Samashya O Chasi Andolan Prosange
(On Agrarian Problems and Peasant Movement in India), and is included
in this volume.

2. The Agrarian Question in Russia
towards the Close of the Nineteenth Century -- Lenin.